3 ms·

I do not understand how these cannot be made idiot proof and cop proof. You can buy the simplest dash cams from China that record HD video and sound that take m

I do not understand how these cannot be made idiot proof and cop proof. You can buy the simplest dash cams from China that record HD video and sound that take mere minutes to set up for under a hundred bucks. The first step needs to mandate a tamper proof system and disabling of any police car from leaving they yard unless the device passes on all tests. Then it should be required to report periodically to a central location if it is working and if not the officer can be directed to obtain a new car. Any device found damaged or tampered with should be a federal offense and investigated by the FBI. As in, those given the ultimate responsibility should be held the most strict standard. Don't like it, get out.

vijayr 11y ago
These steps may be necessary, but how much of their behavior will change? And at what cost? Maybe it is time to evaluate training methods, hire people who have more empathy for powerful positions like police?
kasey_junk 11y ago
Think of how easy it is to spin that politically. "Why did crime rates go up? Because 20% of our patrol officers were stuck in a garage waiting for camera techs at any given time." Also remember that many American cities finances are in a shambles (and Chicago is a prime example). Hiring enough techs or more officers to make up the difference your rules will require is simply not an option. I don't disagree with the sentiment, and I hope federal law starts to treat police camera tampering as a major offense, but there is not an easy technical fix to the problem.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  The spin on the other side would be just as intuitive: "Our police officers are more concerned with getting away with abuse of power than following the law they're supposed to enforce, and as a result, tens (to hundreds) of millions in taxpayer money is being spent on lawsuit payouts, essentially a bailout for bad behavior." While I agree that cameras should be required and intentional tampering a crime, I think behaviors would change much more quickly if laws were put in place to dock pensions and pay across the board to compensate for lawsuits of wrongful death and the like. Suddenly the "blue wall of silence" would become a very vocal supporter of police reform to identify and get rid of bad apples that threaten everybody's pension. Incentives are very powerful tools for changing behavior, much more powerful than blanket force by bodycam laws.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    > "blue wall of silence" would become a very vocal supporter of police reform to identify and get rid of bad apples that threaten everybody's pension This sounds like collective punishment - don't know about America, but over here, it would be not possible due to human rights treaties and legislation. The trade union or police would challenge this in a court and government would back down from such threats immediately. (Hey, even cops are human. Especially they are human. So even they have human rights.)
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      It depends on how you define the law. It could simply be a state or federal resolution that cuts funding to a municipality, regardless of where the money goes. So if money for roads and hospitals goes to pay for the misdeeds of bad cops and the administration takes no action, how will voters respond in the next election cycle?
ams6110 11y ago
I'm sorry but this is hoplessly naive. It's Chicago. One of the most historically corrupt machine governments in the USA. Nothing gets done without dozens of people getting paid off if not in cash than in favors or quid pro quo. It's not even something that people on the inside find unusual. It's just how it is, and always has been. It's a much bigger problem than just mandating tamper-proof cameras.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  This is why I state, these items must be tamper proof and back by regulations and laws. Likely all this must be at the federal level and it become a crime on the federal level to tamper with them. So you make it nearly impossible to break/tamper without trying and its a federal offense to do so. Simple.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Who is buying the cameras? Who is installing the cameras? Who is determining if they are tampered with? Who is making the laws concerning the cameras? Chicago city politicians or employees. All of whom are being paid and influenced to do do their jobs in a way that favors the right people. You seem to be suggesting a federal takeover of the Chicago police department -- a city whose mayor is the former chief of staff of the president, who himself is a Chicagoan. Good luck with that.
grb423 11y ago
I've been on a ride-along with my suburban, middle-America department. The guy had to put clip the wireless mic to his shirt, make sure the antenna was oriented and power it on at go time to save battery. I don't know if there's newer tech that had more of a promise of being able to be made fool-proof from human error much less willful defeat.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  Yeah, smartphone technology; they run on 3/4G networks and have long battery life if just recording / transmitting audio.
Cthulhu_ 11y ago
Yeah, just install smartphone technology behind the windscreen; always on, always connected, and can be monitored remotely. Software on there can deal with spotty connection, too - keep recording if connectivity is lost. And of course make any intentional damage to the things come out of the police officer's own pockets.

vijayr 11y ago

These steps may be necessary, but how much of their behavior will change? And at what cost? Maybe it is time to evaluate training methods, hire people who have more empathy for powerful positions like police?

kasey_junk 11y ago

Think of how easy it is to spin that politically. "Why did crime rates go up? Because 20% of our patrol officers were stuck in a garage waiting for camera techs at any given time." Also remember that many American cities finances are in a shambles (and Chicago is a prime example). Hiring enough techs or more officers to make up the difference your rules will require is simply not an option. I don't disagree with the sentiment, and I hope federal law starts to treat police camera tampering as a major offense, but there is not an easy technical fix to the problem.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
The spin on the other side would be just as intuitive: "Our police officers are more concerned with getting away with abuse of power than following the law they're supposed to enforce, and as a result, tens (to hundreds) of millions in taxpayer money is being spent on lawsuit payouts, essentially a bailout for bad behavior." While I agree that cameras should be required and intentional tampering a crime, I think behaviors would change much more quickly if laws were put in place to dock pensions and pay across the board to compensate for lawsuits of wrongful death and the like. Suddenly the "blue wall of silence" would become a very vocal supporter of police reform to identify and get rid of bad apples that threaten everybody's pension. Incentives are very powerful tools for changing behavior, much more powerful than blanket force by bodycam laws.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  > "blue wall of silence" would become a very vocal supporter of police reform to identify and get rid of bad apples that threaten everybody's pension This sounds like collective punishment - don't know about America, but over here, it would be not possible due to human rights treaties and legislation. The trade union or police would challenge this in a court and government would back down from such threats immediately. (Hey, even cops are human. Especially they are human. So even they have human rights.)
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    It depends on how you define the law. It could simply be a state or federal resolution that cuts funding to a municipality, regardless of where the money goes. So if money for roads and hospitals goes to pay for the misdeeds of bad cops and the administration takes no action, how will voters respond in the next election cycle?

ams6110 11y ago

I'm sorry but this is hoplessly naive. It's Chicago. One of the most historically corrupt machine governments in the USA. Nothing gets done without dozens of people getting paid off if not in cash than in favors or quid pro quo. It's not even something that people on the inside find unusual. It's just how it is, and always has been. It's a much bigger problem than just mandating tamper-proof cameras.

Shivetya 11y ago
This is why I state, these items must be tamper proof and back by regulations and laws. Likely all this must be at the federal level and it become a crime on the federal level to tamper with them. So you make it nearly impossible to break/tamper without trying and its a federal offense to do so. Simple.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Who is buying the cameras? Who is installing the cameras? Who is determining if they are tampered with? Who is making the laws concerning the cameras? Chicago city politicians or employees. All of whom are being paid and influenced to do do their jobs in a way that favors the right people. You seem to be suggesting a federal takeover of the Chicago police department -- a city whose mayor is the former chief of staff of the president, who himself is a Chicagoan. Good luck with that.

grb423 11y ago

I've been on a ride-along with my suburban, middle-America department. The guy had to put clip the wireless mic to his shirt, make sure the antenna was oriented and power it on at go time to save battery. I don't know if there's newer tech that had more of a promise of being able to be made fool-proof from human error much less willful defeat.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago
Yeah, smartphone technology; they run on 3/4G networks and have long battery life if just recording / transmitting audio.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago

Yeah, just install smartphone technology behind the windscreen; always on, always connected, and can be monitored remotely. Software on there can deal with spotty connection, too - keep recording if connectivity is lost. And of course make any intentional damage to the things come out of the police officer's own pockets.